Danh sách cấu hình webhook

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on pagination, whether all configs or a subset are returned, or any auth/scope requirement – so it earns no credit above the annotation baseline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with essentially no filler. The bilingual rendering duplicates the same statement but costs almost nothing in length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what is listed but not the shape or scope of the result (all configs? filtered? paginated?). An agent could call it correctly, but the definition is thin rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema coverage is listed as 100% but the object is empty, confirming no parameter-level detail is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Liệt kê'/'List') and resource ('webhook đã cấu hình'/'webhook configs'), so an agent can tell it retrieves webhook configurations. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as monapay_webhook_logs or monapay_webhook_stats, leaving that disambiguation to the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many webhook siblings (create, update, delete, test, logs, stats, generate_webhook_snippet). The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions that select it over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.